Yes, I think this is broadly following the lines of Nozick's "Wilt Chamberlain" example in his response to Rawls' A Theory of Justice. If Wilt doesn't want to play for less than $N but is happy to play for $N, and his fans are happy to collectively pay $N to see him play, it's arguably a bit weird for the state to step in and say they shouldn't be allowed to or that Wilt should be compelled to play for free.

They're very different visions of what "justice" means: one focused on snapshots of distribution, one focused on processes.

Interestingly, music wasn't hit-driven in 1920. A person could earn a decent but not lavish middle class living as a musician, through things like performance, teaching, theaters, and so forth.

An example was that Miles Davis grew up in a middle class family -- his dad was a dentist -- who thought that becoming a musician was an OK career.

Sure, there were stars -- for instance in sheet music publishing -- but since then the working-class musician jobs have nearly vanished.

this is true in some urban settings agree. Rural people had barter and fell into patterns of farm labor. A wild guess is that the bar and the church were social magnets where cultural arts and entertainment could be done professionally to some extent. A very large base factor is "humans do culture, how to include monetary compensation for things that people do already" ?

I think lottery is a great analogy to contemporary society. Although those with the winning tickets have done their darndest to convince others that it was skill and hard work that got them the tickets.

How are lotteries inherently unjust? A bad idea maybe, but I see no reason that people shouldn't be allowed to gamble on a die roll or whatever...

Do you think inequality is unjust? They increase inequality, and there’s no possible argument that a lottery winner did anything to deserve their good fortune.

It’s the opposite effect of insurance, where society works to undo the results of bad luck.

Maybe that's what insurance should be. It doesn't seem to be that way now. People build large fancy homes or fancy cars and then off load the risk to insurance. The problem with this is that it tends to increase costs for other in the pool and disincentivizes risk mitigating behavior. If I know that insurance will pay out for my car, then I can drive more aggressively. I want my home to look fancy and be huge instead of being built to survive local natural disasters, but that preference might change if I didn't have insurance.

I get what you're saying, though it is nuanced. For example, no insurance company in its right mind would insure a home in San Francisco against earthquake damage if the home isn't actually built to code in terms of its ability to withstand earthquakes. Similarly, car insurance companies charge way higher premiums for drivers with a history of accidents and tickets for reckless driving.

My point being, yes insurance obviously decreases risk for owners, but since insurance companies are the ones inheriting that financial risk, they also inherit the incentive to ensure that things are being done the right way.

Not really. It does when it comes to stuff like code. But none of that address the larger and fancier homes than if they were not insured. Similarly, if other people are buying much more expensive cars, your liability insurance will increase even if your risk stays the same - the likelihood of occurrence is the same but the cost per occurrence is higher.

Consider life insurance. It's about providing for widows and orphans. Before there was insurance, there were mutual aid societies, because it was very important to society to hedge that risk so that people aren't destitute after an accident.

There's social security as well.

I do not think inequality is unjust. Everyone can't have the same thing, it's a fundamental truth of the universe.

It's unjust in the same sense that some people complain about capitalism being unjust: some people are wealthy who didn't cosmically deserve it, but just got lucky. There is disagreement over in which way they were lucky (random luck, or lucky to have the right parents, education, genes, etc.)

>I think “design” is the wrong word.

it's exactly the right word. Taylor Swift herself is a product. No less artificial than Boy bands and Kpop idol groups. These aren't hit or miss businesses, they're scientifically engineered performances, the music industry is literally that, an industry. Taylor Swift doesn't wake up in her bedroom with disheveled hair writing songs and people just flock around her, every piece of song writing, merch, marketing, and performance is micro-managed by an entire team of people.

And for that reason you can actually design the opposite. You can break up platforms that produce megastars, you can promote local music, local venues and artists, you can make people care and design what kind of artistic culture you want to be in.

Well yes, but isn't it also a search process that discovers new trends? When another kind of performer attracts fans, the music industry will latch onto that trend instead. And that's a function of the music, the promotion, and the audience.

It's true that when they find something that works, it will be exploited.

While I agree with the spirit of your message, you picked the wrong artist for this particular line:

> every piece of song writing […] is micro-managed by an entire team of people

No doubt this is true for many many pop artists, where there are literally teams of people with song writing credits, but for Taylor Swift, it is almost always just her and Jack Antonoff credited with songwriting and composition, and not uncommonly just her alone. Say what you will about her, but she writes her own songs.

But even if no one sat down and planned it this way, the system still functions to reward concentration of wealth and attention